[Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles

Jane Darnell jane023 at gmail.com
Wed May 29 07:49:49 UTC 2013

I know you are all assuming while reading this thread that the
situation is much better in humanities subjects such as biographies of
17th-century artists, but strangely, you could say that it's about the
same, because the emphasis (through the centuries) there is often
based on opinions formed through study of the largest collectors with
published catalogs. I agree with Anders: "one of the most important
focuses on our editorial work is in getting a complete covering in as
many subjects as possible", so let's "develop (semi) automatic
generation of articles from official databases". If you deliver a
Wikipedia page to a google search that is as *specific* as possible,
then the people who have the grains of knowledge you need are more
likely to become editors and contribute to them.

2013/5/29, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>:
> ...and engineering (theory ok to good, practical often very weak).
> And varies across fields radically...
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> <putevod at mccme.ru>wrote:
>> On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote:
>>> I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book
>>> "Encyclopedia of Electronic Components." [1] I'm not sure that I've ever
>>> seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me
>>> this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering
>>> articles (at least in English)...
>>> "Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. Some
>>> entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are
>>> shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run
>>> off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors
>>> but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are
>>> distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several
>>> URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but
>>> not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality."
>>> -- phoebe
>>> 1.
>>> http://shop.oreilly.com/**product/0636920026105.do<http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do>
>> Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural and
>> technical sciences in the English Wikipedia.
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list